Supreme Court on Fraternity & Constitutional Morality

Recent Supreme Court remarks emphasising that political leaders must foster fraternity and that public office-holders should live up to constitutional ideals raise core constitutional themes .

📜 1. Constitutional Foundations Involved

✅ (a) Preamble

Key words directly implicated:

• Justice

• Liberty

• Equality

• Fraternity

👉 Fraternity = Sense of brotherhood ensuring dignity of the individual & unity and integrity of the Nation

Possible UPSC angle:

How does fraternity differ from equality?
Equality = legal status; Fraternity = social harmony & cohesion.

---

✅ (b) Fundamental Rights

Article 14 – Equality before Law

• Prohibits arbitrary state action

• Requires fairness & non-discrimination

Article 15 – Non-discrimination

• No discrimination on religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth

Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech

• Includes speech by politicians & officials

BUT…

Article 19(2) – Reasonable Restrictions

• Sovereignty & integrity

• Public order

• Decency, morality

• Incitement to offence

UPSC trap:
Freedom of speech ≠ is absolute.

---

✅ (c) Fundamental Duties (Article 51A)

Especially:

• 51A(e): Promote harmony & spirit of common brotherhood

• 51A(f): Value & preserve composite culture

👉 Court’s emphasis on fraternity echoes citizens’ duties, not just state obligations.

---

⚖️ 2. Constitutional Morality – A Recurrent Theme

🔹 Meaning:

Adherence to:

• Constitutional values

• Democratic ethos

• Institutional restraint

• Respect for diversity

🔹 Frequently cited in cases:

• Navtej Johar (privacy & dignity)

• Sabarimala (gender equality)

• Government formation/floor tests

UPSC Mains usage:
Constitutional morality = guiding principle beyond textual legality.

---

🗣️ 3. Public Speech by Constitutional Functionaries

🧾 Why treated differently?

Holders of high office:

✔ Carry the authority of the State
✔ Influence administration
✔ Shape public behaviour
✔ Affect vulnerable groups

👉 Their speech may:

• Legitimize discrimination

• Undermine equal citizenship

• Cause “chilling effect”

---

❄️ 4. “Chilling Effect” – Important Concept

🔹 Definition:

When speech or behaviour is discouraged due to fear of legal/social consequences.

🔹 UPSC relevance:

Used in:

• Free speech debates

• Media regulation

• Sedition / IT Rules/surveillance discussions

---

🏛️ 5. Can the Court Regulate Speech?

⚠️ Key Tension:

Principle	Concern
Freedom of Speech	Avoid censorship / prior restraint
Constitutional Values	Prevent hate / divisive speech

Court hinted at:

✔ Guidelines instead of bans
✔ Control consequences, not thoughts
✔ Institutional neutrality (avoid “political thicket”)

---

📚 6. Possible Guidelines (Analytical Angle)

UPSC Mains-style thinking:

• Ethical code for ministers/officials

• Accountability mechanisms

• Party constitutions & internal discipline

• Strengthening Model Code of Conduct

• Civil service conduct rules

---

🎯 7. UPSC Prelims Pointers

✔ Fraternity → Preamble
✔ Equality → Articles 14–18
✔ Speech → Article 19(1)(a)
✔ Restrictions → Article 19(2)
✔ Duties → Article 51A
✔ Constitutional morality → Judicial doctrine (not explicit article)

---

✍️ 8. UPSC Mains Question Possibilities

GS-II (Polity / Governance):

“Discuss the role of constitutional morality in regulating public conduct of elected representatives.”

GS-IV (Ethics):

“Why should public officials be held to a higher standard of speech and behaviour?”

Essay Themes:

• Freedom vs Responsibility

• Fraternity in a diverse democracy

• Toxicity in public discourse